April 4, 2006


Courtesy of Yoism.org.

Warning: Fundies please don't watch this. It will make you very angry, and will magnify your hatred towards Atheists like me, and prove once again that Atheists are sent to this earth by the Devil.
Oh, and it contains foul language as well.

NOTE: A whole slew of Penn and Teller clips are available here. They are very easy to embed onto a blog. Thanks to everyone who linked me.


  1. Okay I'm not an atheist, and I'm not even technically a Jew, but that was absolutely hilarious.

    Cheers from Ottawa

  2. It is nice to meet a fellow Canadian in the blogosphere. I didn't have time to see the whole clip. (I tend not to get my information from Las Vegas acts) If you were intending to scare me off as a Christian because of foul language or the fact that you insult the Bible you failed. My faith in Christ and therefore His word has lead me to see both of aunts healed of cancer, watched one time as my mother's broken foot was prayed for, the bones were moved back into place, and she got up off the couch and walked normally, etc., etc... I don't have time to go into all of the miracles I have seen or been apart of. The most important miracle was my salvation. You may not believe me and that's fine but I know that I have more credibility on this issue than a Las Vegas act.

  3. tik, as soon as you convert you are technically a Jew. I'm not sure if a converted Jew can become an Atheist Jew if he decides not to believe in God later on.

    eje, I'll bet you don't get your information from scientists either. Miracles don't happen. Self prayer can work. Mind over matter. Nothing to do with God.
    If you had a relative who lost a limb, would prayer help grow back the limb?

    BTW, no evidence Jesus ever existed. None. Zero.

  4. Okay not to hijack your post, because I think it stands on its own and is a great one!


    As I understand it once one converts to Judaism, the same rules apply to him/her as do those who apply to someone born of a Jewish mother.

    That is unless the conversion was done under false pretense, which is something I suppose a rabbi would have to determine, but don't quote me on that.

    Otherwise, I'm guessing a Jew by choice, would also be considered in nonobservant or maybe a secular Jew, and that could well include being an atheist jew.

    However, I suppose that's really neither here nor there in terms of your post.

    I myself find nothing offensive about the post as a person in the process of converting, which would obviously seem to imply that I believe in God.

    A good post is a good post and Penn and Teller's show hits the nail on the head in many ways, so I'm glad I was able to watch it.

    I say, to Buddy above, great good for you if you have lots of personal miracles in your life, but if you know what you know, why do you feel a need to try to prove it here?

    That stuff reeks of insecurity to me, but what do I know I'm just in misguided goy heading in the wrong direction, (I'm sure) in his opinion that is.

    Anyhow, thanks again for the tremendously entertaining post!

  5. "...watched one time as my mother's broken foot was prayed for, the bones were moved back into place, and she got up off the couch and walked normally..."

    What, moved by themselves? You Christians get wackier every day.

  6. Are these men saying that Charlton Heston did not part the Red Sea?

  7. I am quite possibly Penn & Teller's biggest fan. Not too often you meet atheist libertarians who are proudly out of the closet (no, not a gay implication). Their show is one of the main reasons I have Showtime. Of course, for every 8 episodes I agree with, there are about 2 I disagree with. But, when they're tearing down religion, superstition, the paranormal and the like, I'm about ready to stand up and cheer.

    I'm so glad that the new season has finally arrived!

  8. *
    Mr. Bacon.

    No offense but the magicians PENN AND TELLER aren't very funny, no matter what subject they do hammer better than funny. [btw I'm an expert on hammer, General Contractor]

    but heh thats ok, 'cause the witty and enchanting commenters you have visiting here compensate with funny.

    /smoke :)

  9. Top Ten Reasons That Beer Is Better Than Jesus:-
    a) No one will kill you for not drinking beer.
    b) Beer doesn't tell you how to have sex.
    c) They don't force beer on minors who cannot think for themselves.
    d) Beer has never caused a major war.
    e) When you have a beer you don't knock on people's doors trying to give it away.
    f) Nobody has ever been burned at the stake, hanged or tortured over a beer.
    g) You don't have to wait 2000 years for a second beer.
    h) There are laws saying beer labels cannot lie to you.
    I) You can prove you have a beer.
    j) If you are devoted to beer then there are groups who can help you stop

  10. *
    *Rational Jesus Alert*

    Study claims ice, not water, kept Jesus afloat

    MIAMI, Florida (Reuters) -- The New Testament says that Jesus walked on water, but a Florida university professor believes there could be a less miraculous explanation -- he walked on a floating piece of ice.

    Professor Doron Nof also theorized in the early 1990s that Moses's parting of the Red Sea had solid science behind it.

    Nof, a professor of oceanography at Florida State University, said on Tuesday that his study found an unusual combination of water and atmospheric conditions in what is now northern Israel could have led to ice formation on the Sea of Galilee.

    Nof used records of the Mediterranean Sea's surface temperatures and statistical models to examine the dynamics of the Sea of Galilee, which Israelis know now as Lake Kinneret.
    I swear to Odin, usually I ignore these type of stories as a waste of time, I never read em, but lately they seem funny and I see them everywhere!

    It's a Miracle!

  11. What about the portion of the story relating that Peter tried unsuccessfully to walk on water, but fell in instead?
    I believe that the most plausible explanation for Peter’s fall is that Jesus was wearing ice skates but Peter was either barefoot or at best wearing sandals.
    That reminds me of a riddle: Why did Peter fall? Oh, I-C-Y.

  12. I think that the 2 main points in this show that P&T were trying to get across are:

    (1) Elvis didn't do no drugs.
    (2) That we need more Atheists in the world.

    On point # 2: It's too bad that around 90% of the population in the US, (I don't know about Canada), has no clue as to why the world would be a better place if it had more Atheists in it.

  13. Canada has between 19-30% Atheist/Agnostics. See March 21st post.
    Sweden and Denmark are Atheist heavens.
    Swedish chicks mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

  14. I don't understand. Is this written for three year olds? This is the silliest "disproving" of the bible that I have ever seen/heard. I mean, if you take one specific fundamentalist reading of the bible, and try to justify it scientifically, of course you can find things to disprove it. Besides the fact that many people do not read it literally, and most who do, don't claim that there is historical evidence for it. Just because Penn thinks the stories don't seem fit for the non-existant God doesn't mean that he is the arbiter of "what is God". Its cute that he thinks that ina 29 minute TV show he can "prove" that God doesn't exist, but I would hope that you would be enough of a thinking person to realize that this is all silly and pointless

  15. I don't understand. Is this written for three year olds?
    You are talking about the bible, right? Personally, I think the bible is written for those between 4 and 9.

  16. Cool! A Canadian atheist Jew in the blogosphere! I'm a somewhat Hebrew-speaking Canadian atheist myself, albeit not Jewish. I like your collection of flags -- I'd personally have Canada/UK/Israel, since I'm not feeling well disposed to the US at the moment and my bf is English, but chacun a son gout, eh?

    I'm kind of a fan of Penn and Teller, except that I think too many Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot, and I also have too much of a sense of interconnectedness to ever be more than a civil libertarian... :)

    Feel free to visit my blog, if you like.

  17. IB, I'm a Right Winger on the war in terror. That coupled with my other views make me a Centrist. I'm not into the Far Left when it comes to Terror, and I feel Islam needs to be reformed in a bad way.
    I don't speak French (4 years of it in school) and I don't speak Hebrew (I had a crash course for my Bar Mitzvah though).
    OK, I'll say it. Lose the black background on your blog. A black background isn't viewer friendly.....I tell everyone with a black background this, I'm not singling you out:)

  18. That has to be the funny shit I have seen about the bible. What is even more funny is watching a few of the posters here move the goal post around to save their faith in their imaginary friend.

    This was amazing, I'm going to break on those ten commandments and steal this article and blog about it.

  19. A black background isn't viewer friendly.

    Matter of taste. I prefer it.

  20. I don't know what's worse: P&T's exhumation of debunked skeptic canards or the laughable comments here.

  21. For the guy who said:
    I say, to Buddy above, great good for you if you have lots of personal miracles in your life, but if you know what you know, why do you feel a need to try to prove it here?

    That stuff reeks of insecurity to me, but what do I know I'm just in misguided goy heading in the wrong direction, (I'm sure) in his opinion that is.

    It doesn't reek of insecurity. It reeks of a good Christian who will not bear your blood on his hands at the judgment.
    How anybody can look at the wonders around us and not believe in God is beyond me!
    Do you really think this could happen naturally?
    Evolution (and atheism) is just as much a faith based religion as Christianity.
    There is less to prove evolution than there is to prove the Bible.

    If you want some really interesting sites try the Institute for Creation Research or Answers in Genesis.

  22. Hope you don't mind, I placed this (via blogger link) to Blondesense.

    I'm so glad to see another rational mind on the web! I was beginning to worry that superstition was taking over the world. And now I'm off to find that P&T episode on creation that someone mentioned.

  23. Hmmm ok, I know this is my first time here, but 'ANONYMOUS' (and why didn't you at least give a name to yourself if you are so gungho over God) Please do not expect the world to blindly follow your superstitions.

    If you have to argue and post sites that attempt to 'prove' that your God exists than I have to point out to you that YOU are the one lacking faith. (And apparently have an unhealthy bloodlust, ie. apocalyse and rapture - to boot). Its the old Babble Fish premise, once you PROVE God exists there is no need for faith and God dies.

    As for threatening ppl (and YES you are, even if it is in a round about way) with blood spilling during some hoodoo judgement; not only does it lack class and character, it is a clear symptom of delusion.

    And as far as evolution is concerned, try taking some REAL courses in evolutionary biology, or go to Pharygula and drop Prof. Myers an email, you might actually begin to understand then.

  24. Welcome flame. I just posted Ken Miller's lengthy lecture where he slaughters ID.
    I'm sure that Fundies like Anon won't watch it.
    Whenever I see someone say that evolution is faith based, I just feel sorry for the person saying it.
    They just don't have a clue.

  25. why do people say there's more to "prove the bible" than there is to "prove evolution"? as if they're somehow oppossing forces (other than evo being based in observable fact)...it seems the height of idiocy, and to run around the internet looking for places to say "My aunts were cured of cancer by JESUS!"...that just boggles the mind. wasn't there a passage in the bible that says "keep your fuckin' faith to yourself, douchebag"? If there wasn't, it's a major oversight on the multitude of author's parts.

    ADDITIONALLY! why do people need fuckin' proof of the bible ANYWAYS? DON'T YOU TRUST YOUR MADE-UP GOD, DOUCHEBAGS? What's wrong with them? It's a sorry sight, all these faith-based morons not having enough faith to just say (ridiculously) "I don't care what the fact are, i just need faith".

    And FUCK, why aren't you stoning your dipshit children to death LIKE THE BIBLE TELLS YOU TO when they watch That 70's Show and you told them not to? What's wrong with you sinners!

    Good fucking shit, you people are idiots. it's enough to give a guy an aneurysm.

  26. I once discussed conversion to Judaism with a rabbi, not because I wanted to convert, but I was curious if believing in god was a requirement. I'm sure the answer varies rabbi to rabbi, but the rabbi with whom I was speaking said no.

    One is Jewish if the aforementioned qualifications are met. Believing in god is not one of them.

    I'm a Christian the same way. I was raised by people who inculcated into me certain myths and culture. I will always be the person raised with those ideas. It matters not a whit whether I believe in god or not (which I don't, but that's unimportant).

    I believe that Jesus taught us something more fundamental than a hope in an after life. I think he taught us how to live better, more fulfilled lives. In other words, he taught technique as opposed to spiritual myth. Most Christianists I encounter worship the icon and never pay attention to the teachings of their icon.

    Hey, my first time here, but I'll be back.


  27. Thanks for commenting Houston. I can see a Rabbi saying that because how can anyone know how much someone believes. I'm sure many people convert to Judaism in mixed marriages for the sake of the other person, or that person's family and the potential children that come out of the marriage.

    I do admit that the teachings you attribute to Jesus are useful moral guidelines, but I believe them to be man made, and I question whether Jesus even existed. See my sidebar for the Jesus Never Existed? links, if you are at all curious.

    And Garth. LMAO, even if you are a Moonbat.

  28. Belief is like a jailer
    Who offers you a key
    To free you from a prison
    The jailer built for thee


    Thanks for the Penn & Teller show. I am utterly convinced that if a person thinks the (pick a version) bible is literally true they are truly lost. Religions, specifically of the mono-theistic variety, have survived the centuries by staying out of the harsh beam of light we call reason and science. Who will kill religion? True believers.

    And every spring it is the Christians who put their god back up on the cross and pound those ancient nails into the flesh. Do they ever suspect why they repeat a story about death and rebirth just as it coincides with Spring in the Northern Hemisphere? Or was their creator just piggybacking for the heck of it?


  29. Thanks to flame for directing me here from BlondeSense. Great site bacon eating atheist jew! That's a great funny ass video! Saving you in my favorites!!

  30. I came back on to see what was said after what I wrote. Whoa!?
    You people are really something.
    Anytime someone doesn't agree with you we are ignorant.
    It may surprise you to know that I have an IQ of almost l50. I could give you college level lectures on evolution. (Supposedly proving it to you that it's real.) But I could also give you lectures on ID.
    My point is this, I studied the facts for myself. I made an informed, intelligent decision.
    The major thing I could not get past in evolution was spontaneous regeneration. Life coming from non-life????? and it only happened once????? and it never happened again???? Like I said, evolution, a faith based religion.
    And yes, Anonymous (In NC), if you want to get more specific. I don't need my e-mail full of a bunch of hate mail.
    GOD BLESS!!!!!!

  31. Anon, you are lying about your knowledge about evolution.
    Evolution doesn't deal with the start of life, and evolution doesn't state that it happened only once.
    Evolution deals with life once it started.
    As far as ID goes, it is not science.
    Go peddle your BS on your flock, my readership in onto you in a big way. Phoney.

  32. Good job pissing off the Christians, fellow Canadian! :-)

  33. Its cute that he thinks that ina 29 minute TV show he can "prove" that God doesn't exist, but I would hope that you would be enough of a thinking person to realize that this is all silly and pointless

    Nobody disproved the existence of god: the general worthlessness of the bible as a source of history, consistency, fact, law, morals or interest was what the show was about.

    Anyway, it was fun to watch. Thanks to the Bacon Eating Atheist Jew for hosting it. For what it's worth, there are Jewish sects out there that allow atheists (my dad's in one) although they're probably not well thought of by the larger branches.

  34. Anonymous, I personally doubt your IQ claim, but then again, IQ isn't a necessity for proper reasoning. Your own faith causes you to ignore what nature itself tells you. That isn't a measure of IQ, it is a measure of your need to believe. That falls under psychology, and in your case, I believe it could be found somewhere in the DSM-IIIR. Fundmentalists, of whatever ilk, religious or political, are way too into making the world revolve around their own view, which the world seldom does.

    Yes, my name is my name, and not anonymous. But, my name is from a character in a movie, The Young Lions. That movie, of course, is an anti-war movie, but the fact that the charecter learns to think for himself is the key point here. Faith not supported by logic is useless.

  35. I'm mildly annoyed - I like P&T, and agree with their point. There is no God. That said, they didn't treat that theologian fairly. There were several points where it's pretty evident, if you already know a bit about the issues, that the theologian's comments were not kindly edited. The mainstream perspective in critical bible study (serious scholars, not AIG bullshit) agrees with the Skeptic mag fellow on many points. It seems as though they went to find someone devout with a patina of scholarly expertise, rather than a serious bible scholar. So although I agree with them in terms of worldview, I wish they'd been a little more diligent when they were looking for someone on the theist side of the argument. The fellow they have in that role is uncomfortably close to a straw man.

  36. Of course, as mild annoyances go, it's nice to have a theist troll around to throw things into perspective. Mr. Anonymous theist, your claim that "I made an informed, intelligent decision" is highly dubious if we're to believe that you can't distinguish between abiogenesis and evolution, or that you take Intelligent Design seriously, or that you seriously think that evolution is "a faith based religion." You're a garden-variety troll - many claims, no evidence.

  37. Sirkowski, I am not trying to piss off Christians with my blog. My goal here is to entertain and maybe make people think.

    Bubba said: "Nobody disproved the existence of god: the general worthlessness of the bible as a source of history, consistency, fact, law, morals or interest was what the show was about."
    Excellent summary!

    I could go to Israel anytime I want and live there btw, that is the largest Jewish sect on the planet. They accept Atheists too.

    Christian, as you probably saw, I noticed what you noticed.

    Sean, if you take into account that 45% of Americans are YECs, P & T was extremely fair with their choice, to me anyways. I don't think Atheists have much of a gripe with Theistic Evolutionists, so why bother with them. Most of them believe in all the scientific evidence but also add a God as a creator, to give them a sense of purpose in life, and a shot at the afterlife. Many take coincidental occurences (like a big gust of wind out of nowhere) that happen at times of mourning or distress or even happiness as a sign of God or a guardian angel.

  38. The "Bible is Crapola" Penn & Teller link seems to have been removed from the site you're linking to. Guess someone didn't like you distributing it. Bastards. Them, not you - glad you are getting it out there :).

    - Nick

  39. It was predicted by God Is For Suckers. That is one prophecy that came true. He has the bible beat.

  40. the video is up:


  41. Thanks guav. I just put the good link in. It is working for now.

  42. ...jew, I have 1238 words response in word format and there is no feature where i can copy and past it. I have also copied and posted it on another link [not my blog] http://www.appletreeblog.com/?p=332. If there is a means to copy and paste here, I will do it, otherwise pls refer there, as continuation of our discussion yesterday at about 8ish pm .

  43. ...jew, in case u can't find it, go to the archives and look under 'science' and then if need be search for the article forum that deals with 'gravity' and plane. I placed it there, because [1] it is a science response [2] it is not to do with being Christian like the other article on science & religion and why are u still a Christian [3] BBT deals with gravity too, as in the expansion of the universe, the matter that were attracted by gravity formed stars. I had 10 points but the 1000 words covers the 5 points for brevity.

  44. Bacon Eating Atheist Jew,

    The brief [partial write in 10 points I talked to you about] are at Comments No. #8 and #10 at this blog [not mine] http://www.appletreeblog.com/ and check under left hand column margin for 'categories' and then go down the bottom to the last 6th from the bottom, titled "science" and then go to the forum for the article dated Apr 12, 2006 titled "Gravity Plane! Woo" and then zero into comment No. # 8, #10 there for my response to your understanding of BBT [Big Bang Theory].



  45. Anon, problems with the BBT right now does not mean Godidit. Believers always use this dishonest approach in order to try to prove God. Does Intelligent Design ring a bell?

  46. bacon eating atheist jew,

    Intelligent Design belittles God. Even the Director of the Vatican Observatory, a Jesuit [Roman Catholic priest] who works as full time cosmologist and stands high up in the American astronomical world, will tell you. If you need a link of what he publicly said on this, I can search for it. Alternatively you can work it backwards by going to vatican observatory and then go to staff and go for the director and see his name and cue his name in on ID and you will get the Jan 2006 statement that he said THAT !!! OK?

    Have you visited the blog where I placed my comments for you too? I have just put in another 2 comments, # 11 [ comment of a priest cosmologist] and # 13 [mine], of 946 words dealing with 'event horizon' of blackholes as opposed to 'point zero' of the BB origin, as well as String theory 2002.

  47. Anon, I'm not a phyicist. I've gone to that site. But two things, you won't convince me God was around 13.7 billion years when it is apparent he hasn't been seen since. As far as Catholicsm goes, I see no proof Jesus even existed as a man. So although I admire the Vatican these days with their acceptance of much of science, you can't convince me that God is the answer because science hasn't figured out the beginning of time yet.

  48. bacon eating atheist jew,
    1. I am not evangelical, philosphical maybe. So, sorry pal, it was NOT an attempt to convince you there is GOD at 13.7 bi yrs ago or that God has been around for these 13.7 bi yrs. Nice try :- )))
    2. Now you have proof Jesus did NOT exist? I like to see it.
    3. That science does NOT yet know what happened at that micro second before the Big Bang, seems to not a big thing. If the universe was beginningless, then it is the Eastern Hinduism, Buddhism worldview. If it had a beginning at point zero, it tends to lean to Western Christianity. All bets are covered in philosophy :- ))) You gather that Quantum Gravity Loop leans towards BBT? Does it?

  49. I can't prove Jesus didn't exist. But I can't prove he existed.

    See my sidebar for sources.

    Again, I am not a physicist. As soon as scientists are in agreement that God was responsible for the the second before Big Bang, I will start to look at it.

    And I mean 50%+ scientists.

  50. 1. I had a brief look at the source for Jesus never existed. Question, you are referring to [a] historical Christ and [d] divine Christ. Both. The historical Christ would need a better web site proof than currently obtained. The divine Christ is an issue of debate outside the Christian community, as three of the four Abrahamic faiths, do not see Christ as divine, human yes, prophet, yes. In other traditions, everyone of us is capable of great heights if we aspire hard enough. In Buddhism, everyone can be a Buddha if the effort is put in.

    2. Your 'reliance on external agreement of 50% + scientists' that there is God at the micro second before the Big Bang, depends as you know on-
    [a] agreement of definition and experience of God, eg trinity of God, or unity of God, ...
    [b] you do the survey from time to time of the scientists personal privately held view. Then again is it Canadian scientists or plus American or plus MORE?
    [c] you are aware that the scientific community is not able to come up with a theory that is yet capable of proof, on the zero point, which is the micro second before the BB, and that this could come way after our natural life span.
    [d] you cannot understand Loop Quantum Gravity now, but you entrust your reliance on scientists on theories that you do not yourself understand nor seek to understand.

    3. Do you see or feel any implications of the scientific fact that 13.7 billion years ago less a micro second, of 0.0000000000001 second, that, all matter and energy that is now seen in this universe was a hot dense point or like a grain of little sand at high temperature? That you are matter and energy as are everything and everyone in the universe and that approx 13.7 bi yrs ago, we were ALL one !

  51. bacon eating atheist jew,

    Use philosophy, not advanced science of cosmology, beyond the basic grasp of fundamental cosmology. Your notion of no purpose of life, save the meaning you give to it, was said by well known Western philosophers from Soren Kierkegaard to Friedrich Nietzsche to Jean-Paul Satre. :- ))))

  52. Anon about the historical Jesus. I offer more than one site. Bottom line is there is no proof he existed, and a lot of circumstantial evidence that he most likely was a myth based on 3 or 4 other stories/myths that were known at the time Christianity started.
    As far as the rest is concerned, I'm not playing the game. Godidit is not the replacement for something science has yet to figure out, in my lifetime, or even in a thousand future generations. I'm confident that science will answer your question and the answer will not include God.

  53. bacon eating atheist jew,

    Oh yes science Answered OR ALSO answered my question, and I have laid it out at comment # 15,16 at the same blog. Whether it includes God, depends on one's philosophical understanding of God, but the main point is that it answers the Question of 'the purpose of life' the 'mystery of life' beyond just ethics, and that 'ethics' is an expression - natural expression of that understanding of the 'purpose of life'.

    Ta da :- ))))))

  54. I read it. Your philosophy doesn't fly with me. Sorry.

  55. "I read it. Your philosophy doesn't fly with me. Sorry."

    Oh cool! So in otherwords, your response amounts to:

    "What you said isn't valid simply because I said so. Neener-Neener!"

    For a second I though you wanted people to take you seriously with this stuff.

  56. Nyred, I've already explained I'm not a scientist. I rely on what scientists come up with because I know how rigorous the testing processes are.
    The fact that no scientist speculates on God filling in the gap of what science can't explain today, doesn't sit well with me. Believers use this dishonest approach all the time for everything from the age of the earth to evolution to abiogenesis.
    I am not going to take a theologians explanation for anything scientific, Sorry.

    Find me a few scientists who buy into these theories and show me their work.

  57. I will also add that yes, we are all related regardless of the start of the universe. We all share common ancestors, in fact humans share closer common ancestors 60,000 years ago for all males alive today and 150,000 years ago for all females alive today.
    And yes, everything in the universe started from the same origin. But God is not needed in this equation. God is a man made concept.

  58. bacon eating atheist jew,

    I am responsible for #8,10,11,15,16 and for the record, I am NOT a theologian, nor a Christian. So please GO and do your own science homework. Don't just say I am not a physicist, as if that excuses you from knowing the scientific theories on origin and development of the universe. I have linked talk origins and with your high IQ, that should be a piece of cake. :-)))))))

  59. Anon, I read your stuff. Again, even Stephen Hawking says that if God did anything his window for activity was quite small (time zero). But again, you fail to convince me that God has to be a part of the equation. Unless you want to argue that God is nature. Science will eventually figure out what was going on at time zero. Maybe not in our lifetime.
    And again, God is a man made concept.

  60. Another thing Anon, the fact that there is no proof Jesus ever existed, shouldn't you worry about coming to terms with that as well. And does your "theory" depend on Jesus existing too?

  61. bacon eating atheist jew,

    I asked you to read the science stuff at talk origins link posted. Use your high IQ to penetrate the science stuff 'for yourself' than deviate with side issues. Understand the science issues than rest on "I am not a physicist, scientist, leave it to scientists to tell ..."

  62. bacon eating atheist jew,

    For a person who has such high IQ, one would expect 'fair play'. If you present an article or video on a critique of one holy text, you would be expected to research if you do not know, and then present the other redeeming features. A simple example is you would have researched and presented the Catholic think tank's attitude to science and the Bible.

    If a Christian has difficulty reconciling science with faith, I would direct them to the Christians that understand creationism and intelligent design belittles God.

    If an atheist has difficult in understanding the purpose of life, and thus concedes that, life has the meaning one gives to it, I would direct them to understanding some basics of cosmology on the origin and development of the universe and the philosophy of it. It works for some but not all.

    I think we are fellow passengers then 13.7 billion years and now, and I am not about to tear down your understanding of life, without directing you to that which affirms better. For this reason, I find the efforts of all who tear down other religion, even if not mine, to be unethical, inconsiderate and destructive. It could have been otherwise. Just be 'fair' . :- )))))

  63. I mentioned I am NOT a theologian, because your short reply to nyred, could also be read that you find my comments as a theologian dishonest. You may not have meant my comments. I just wanted to set straight the record I am not a theologian so that if you had perchance thought i was writing as a theologian, you might have seen it anew.

    I think we differ on understanding the existence of God and also in understanding the concept of God. You limit yourself to the 'common' Judeo Christian concepts [ not even the Judeo Christian concepts of leading Christian cosmologists] and thus it is a non starter, an exercise in futility. The way out of the impasse is you brush up your understanding of the origin and development of the universe.

  64. Your existence and my concept of your existence are different things as you can appreciate and thus you will appreciate that the existence of God and your concept of existence of God and my concept of existence of God will be different as will be 6-7 billion [thats about our global population] concepts of God couched in the positive or even in the negative :- ))))))

  65. Sorry, I understand that you have a creator in mind. I could never believie in the Judeo-Christian God, and I am not taking it you do either.
    Do you believe in Jesus as the Messiah? If yes, then it is influencing your "theory."
    I put your posts on another board. You are free to join and correct me there if you wish, but this thread is an old one.

    Here is the link.

  66. bacon eating atheist jew,

    Your reply and very inappropriate action shows that you have again got the wrong end of the stick. I am a Theravada Buddhist, and if you are a genuine atheist, you would read with an open mind comments # 8,10,11,15,16 and my replies to you on this board.

    Good night and fare ye well. :- )))))

  67. What inappropriate action? Putting this argument on another board was something I had to do because I am a lay person when it comes to science. OK, I thought you were a Christian, but that still doesn't mean that you not trying to imply that the beginning of the universe was propped up by God.

  68. "BTW, no evidence Jesus ever existed. None. Zero." What an idiotic moron you are. But as a typical jew I should not be surprised that you are. Your ideas and actions are that of a typical jew who is pissed off that judaism is screwed up and based on being sore losers, do everything they can to prove that so is Christianity. Along the way you claim to be "Atheists", as if that is anything. Actually calling yourself an atheist reflects your persona: a disrespectful, arrogant, and self centered being who thinks that they know reality. Consequently if there is no proof of Jesus then is there any proof of anything beyond the industrial revolution? How about there is no proof of your so called jews being in Palestine and haul your lousy people out of "Israel" and go back to central asia where your true ancestry came from??

  69. There is no evidence that Jesus ever lived. That is a fact.
    Anon, you are an idiot if you think there is any proof.
    And your rant about Jews and Judaism just shows your ignorance.

  70. I posted under Anonymous on these dates and time :
    # 27 Apr 1.41
    # 26 Apr 14.25 & 14.20 & 14.12 & 9.33 & 1.15
    # 23 Apr 16.12 & 3.02 & 2.09
    # 22 Apr 15.52 & 13.58
    # 21 Apr 17.41 & 12.37 & 12.19

    and confirm that 2 posts above by Anonymous 4 May 2006 19.01 is NOT by me. Neither the language nor the attitude is my way.

    BEAJ, I sympathise with you the OTHER anon's adverse post, even though, I would point out that there are historians who acknowledge the existence and thus humanity of Jesus, while some acknowledge his divinity, others do not say anything of it. There is one historian who has written a 4000 years history of Western mind covering Greek, Hebrew, Christianity, etc, .... and he does acknowledge the existence of Jesus. Interesting too, I gather that the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into ancient Greek language some few hundred years before Jesus was born.:- ))))


  71. There are many historians and theologians who admit that there is no historic proof Jesus existed, same with archaeological proof. Again, if you don't believe me, check out my sidebar under the Jesus links.

  72. BEAJ, I read one link, Jim Walker's Did a historical Jesus exist? I was not too impressed for some of these reasons.
    1] I did not see his credentials as a historian.
    2] I see his reference to 'hearsay' and since you came to to a US board, and from there, I came here, I will refer to US law on hearsay, as it will be slightly different from your Canadian hearsay law, even though we could have common 'common law ideas'. However in USA, there is the federal rules on hearsay and non hearsay. If you could take the time and trouble and look at hearsay, then, you will see my disenchantment at the writer's broad sweep of denial on the basis of hearsay.
    3] Hearsay is used in courts of law, not even small claims court in USA. I cannot see how we judge history or religion solely on hearsay, and if court hearsay is applied to Christianity, then it should be applied to Buddhism. If memory does not fail me, oral tradition was strong, and Buddha's teachings were handed down by rote and memory before some hundred of years later that they decided to have it reduced to writing. I have a friend who is very into Buddhism and meditation and she told me she witnessed the recitation of the Buddhist Bible which is about 11 times the Christian Bible in length and they were word perfect as she had the text in hand and could listen to the oral renditions. Some just have photographic memory as one constitional law prof delivers his lectures with numberings as if he is reading from an open book. My friend was in Myanmar for the gathering of the Theravada Buddhist monks, some big affair once a few/many years.
    4] Historians generally accept the historical Jesus Christ, and if you cite historians who reject the historical Christ, could you name them, provide their credentials and where they teach in USA, the university.
    5] What is your purpose of establishing that Jesus did not exist?
    6] The author cites Maurice, the French scientist Muslim, who would accept the historical Christ but not the divine Christ as a Muslim, but the quote, was of an aspect of his view point but does not show up his acceptance of the historical Jesus.
    7] The author quotes Pagels, a well known Christian scholar from Harvard, and who did much work on comparing the gnostic text and canonised Gospels, but quotes are taken out of context.
    8] In the course of my early days, Buddhist reading, I was surprised that scholarship of yester centuries can be different from today. For instance, we would not today, attribute our own scientific finding to Albert Einstein even if he had personally mentored us. In those times, it was considered good discipleship to attribute one's new findings built on one's teacher's teachings, to the teacher. I was also surprised some of the ancient Greeks did that too. I wondered whether this style was the acceptable fashion of that yester centuries.
    9] When Einstein submitted his thesis in initial years there were no footnotes. Today such submissions would be thrown into the waste bin. Yet Einstein's Special Relativity and later General Relativity has improved on Newton's that our world has changed so much because of his style of non foot noted calculations.
    10] With your high MENSA score, what is your purpose of pursuing this line of enquiry about non existence of Jesus Christ? If you really wanted to pursue it, you would have to undertake a lot of work, more than the few links you have done to determine whether there is a historical Jesus. I am reminded of Albert Sweitzer, who wrote his thesis of the Historical Jesus Christ and then left for Africa to be a missionary [ doctor?] As you know I am a Buddhist, but since you keep bringing this to my attention, I have 10 points for you to consider. I may not have done Christians or Christianity justice, but this is my Buddhist take as a fellow religionist.

    Just to be sure, I am not confused with some irrate person, also 'anon', I shall sign off as G as between us. Yours truly,G

  73. Anon, you should check out more than one link, other historians are mentioned.
    For over 40 years I accepted Jesus as a real person, but then I came across a lot of material that has led me to believe he did not.
    I find the whole concept fascinating that the most famous person in "history" didn't exist. But more importantly, it shows that people who are trying to put creation into science class while dismissing evolution as junk science, don't even have a real foundation for their beliefs. I also am interested in real history.
    On raving atheist (theists welcome), there is a current thread on the possibility that the myth of Jesus was based heavily on Caesar.

  74. BEAJ,

    I had TWO unpleasant insults from a poster at one of the threads with expletive employed. Hardly conducive environment for any intelligent discussion.

    You have yet to furnish me the names of authoritative historians in US universities that deny the historical Christ. To my knowledge, there are none or hardly any, as yardsticks used by historians may be different from that you have used or those whose sources you rely on. Yours truly, G

  75. Anon, I really don't want to dig up stuff right now. I can tell you that any honest authoritative historian would have to admit that he has no evidence that Jesus ever existed. The Gospels for sure aren't historical. Q is doubted. Josephus wrote about Christians who followed Christ....no proof. Again, there is no honest proof that Jesus existed...........none.

  76. BEAJ, I am also tired. You asked me to go the atheist thread, and I find there is a failure even to distinguish between a psychosis and a belief system, mistaking the psychotic expression involving religious icons as identical to a psychosis. Then, I am told, calling someone a psychotic is not actionable without proof of damages, but failing to realise that generally, for general damages, no proof of damage is required to be pleaded or proved.

    I will suggest to you, to read a good history text that spans the classical era of the Greeks, to the transformation of the modern era, by Richard Tarnas "The Passion of the Western Mind". It has 544 pages, soft cover, and in US it costs USD 16.95 and in Canada it costs $ 25.95.
    1st edition, Apr 1993.

    However if you have a personal reason for pursuing on your quest of non existence of Jesus Christ, I would suggest you limit it to your personal search and investigation, and UNTIL, you have the understanding of a majority of the reknowned historians, you would do better, to not take a public position on it, just on the purported type of evidence you have to establish your case. It is just my friendly advice, and need not be taken or considered.

    I wish you well, Beaj. I respect you that you have not deleted any of my posts, and the same goes so far at the thread you invited me to. However, I would lack the energy to enter your new thread you invite me, where i find the level of courtesy [ at the atheist board and their several threads ] is seriously wanting, whatever the reason. Such discourtesy is disruptive of any intelligent and serious discussion. Such discourtesy, I have been advised is considered freedom of speech, an erroneous understanding of the fundamental right vis a vis American Constitution and its First Amendment, where there are no state actors, but a private forum!

    I wish you well in your journey and years ahead, Beaj.

    I might check in, in Sept 2006 if there is anything that Geezer or others have reverted on the BBT, Origin of the universe issue, and if they have NOT, you will understand what I mean by "inappropriate action" taken to learn or know of the BBT, origin of the universe [ that is despite my active intervention to jolt them]. Either they know or the scientists are acting like high priests who deem that knowledge should be kept to their elitist circle and couched in such technical language that lay persons cannot understand or are not worthy of understanding. I tend to think there is a lack of understanding on their own part, for if one knows, one can write a primer in a few hours. I tried your course of action and it did not yield result, but I will see what happens by Sept 2006 still. That's the best I can do, Beaj. Good nite.

    Yours truly,

  77. G, again, I've read lots about Jesus, and I know by now I would have come across real historical evidence if it existed. It doesn't. In fact, the more I read, the less I believe such a person even had a chance to exist.
    It isn't personal, I find it interesting, that someone who never existed had such a stranglehold on so many people.
    Like I said, up until a couple of years ago, I assumed he was a real person. Then I started investigating what others were calling proofs.

  78. Beaj, you are entitled to your belief that there is no historical Jesus Christ. You are entitled to your belief that the human Jesus Christ did not exist.

    Just know that, most historians accept the existence of the historical Jesus Christ. That the human Jesus Christ existed. One historian mentioned that serious historians study five languages as he did. As I said, if one wants to prove your belief, one should undertake more serious work. How historians agree upon proof, is a matter of historical standards, not legal standards of hearsay, or US federal standard of non hearsay. Without a history degree or specialisation and without mastery of five languages, a person who declares he has proof that Jesus Christ did not exist, will not be taken seriously. Without the ability to refer to serious historians of repute who assert that Jesus Christ did not exist, stating their credentials and the university where they are tenured, any assertion that Jesus Christ did not exist, will not be acceptable, but if a minority, a very small minority wish to believe that Jesus Christ did not exist, it is their right to so believe.

    Please note, the book I recommended, is about the development of Western mind from ancient Greek times, to modern times. It is not written by a historian but a philosopher. It is worth a read, about the shaping of the mind, the collective mind, towards an understanding of the Western mind today.

    Cheerio. The die hards in the thread I mentioned, are still at wrong use of psychosis. You should consider asking the moderator to refer the proper use of the term to a psychiatrist, so that the understanding of the term can be understood, otherwise it does reflect badly on the understanding shown on the board/threads. I have done my best.

    Yours truly,

  79. You do know that I am not saying I have proof Jesus didn't exist, I'm stating there is no contemporary historical or archaeological evidence that verifies his existence.
    With all the impact he supposedly made, there was not one word written about him during the time he supposedly lived. Greek, Roman, and Hebrew historians didn't mention him, there are no letters that mention him, no physical evidence that he existed, and historians now argue that the chance of crucifixion might be one in 10 and on further reading, the crucifixion death wasn't written until around 2-300 years after Christ supposedly lived. The first words written about Jesus didn't appear until after the Christian movement just sprang up around 65 AD, it was an observation the Christians existed.
    That being said, even today, crazy religions pop up all the time based on nonsense (scientology, mormonism, etc), it only took Jim Jones 14 years from becoming a minister to get 900 people to take cyanide.
    Your argument about historians believing Jesus lived isn't relevant. They have no proof. None, zilch. And if you read all the links I provide on my sidebar about Jesus' existence, you can easily see how the Jesus myth most likely came to be and who the mythical Jesus is based on.

  80. Beaj, your are aware that historians are dealing with the historical Jesus Christ, not the divinity of Jesus Christ.

    Your response indicates reference to historial standards are set aside, or should be set aside for the question of the existence of Jesus Christ and private standards of select people are utilised or are to be utilised. Also current standards are utilised against prior centuries and millineum even if inappropriate, without looking at standards used in past.

    It appears that the purpose of your investigation and acceptance of the belief that the historical Jesus Christ did not exist, is a cornerstone of your atheist outlook. That being the case, it is your personal matter, and part of your belief system; and I shall leave it as that, respecting your belief, but having to disagree with it. My disagreement does not affect your personal belief, and maybe we should leave it rest?

    In this case, my disagreement rests on views of historians that there is a historical Jesus Christ, by historical standards, not any other persons' standards.

    Yours truly,

  81. You are wrong. Honest historians state they can't prove Jesus existed. Show me one shred of evidence Jesus existed.
    It is not an Atheist requirement to not believe in a historical Jesus, but since many Atheists seek truths and use valid history as a guide, I can see why many would conclude like me. Again, I was an Atheist well before I stopped believing Jesus existed. That revelation happened less than 2 years ago through examination of information like the links I provided, which you probably won't read.

  82. Beaj, the point is history is a discipline as science is a discipline, and historians accept the existence of Jesus Christ. Your denial remains a state of your belief, and as I respect the beliefs of others of the trinity or unity of God, I respect your personal belief that there is no historical Jesus Christ.

  83. Mr. BEAJ,

    As to not confuse this anon with others I will sign off as C. One irate individual named 'anon' gave you some nasty comments and you responded "And your rant about Jews and Judaism just shows your ignorance". If you are truly an Atheist you would not give a damn about Judaism, but it seems you do. As a Christian I will have to disagree with you and agree with 'anon' even if this person was uncontrollably angry. And the reason is because if most people in the world found out what true Judaism is about they would be horrified and disgusted. In Judaism the practitioners repeatedly sacrificed humans to "Molech" (whatever on God's green Earth that means) mostly their own children. Presumably to a form of Satan. This is only one of the bad things in your "Ex" religion. When God sent Jesus it was to put a stop to this unhuman and hatred-filled horrendous "religion". It has succeeded for the most part as practitoners of ancient Judaism will quickly find themselves in jail today. In fact I invite anyone to read the talmud... it makes the Quran sound like a Children's book on innocence. And yet you hate Muslims, Islam etc. when your own people glorify sacrifice and claim any non-Jew is an animal. And also if "Jesus did not exist" as you claim then that automatically means your talmud is also invalid because it is filled with lies: They claim the mother of Jesus was a whore and Jesus was a carpenter blah blah blah. As if you actual proof exists. But yet "there is no proof about the existence or divinity of Christ". What an obnoxious hypocrite! And these couple of clowns mocking the bible are going straight to hell after their brief but miserable existence on Earth is over. I challenge anyone to find anything bad and contradictory info in the NEW TESTAMENT, the part of the bible which teaches Christianity. In the Old Testament the writing went back hundreds of years before Christ. And all this lame rhetoric about Noah's ark being impossible etc shows YOUR ignorance. If you even bothered reading the bible the people of Noah and the people of today are not the same. In Noah's time lifespan was around 1000 years. Today it is about one tenth. So who do you think you are and who do these two clowns Penn & Teller think they are making decisions as to what is true and false? You don't even know the entire story and you make desperate conclusions. And what about "evolution"? Well what about it? Only a fool believes humans reached their current state from whatever animal you think they evolved from. Evolution is not scientific and true science does not contradict Christianity in any way no matter how you Atheists and Jews try to claim otherwise.

  84. Incidentally the scientists on the board/threads, appear to have difficulty distinguishing the difference between psychosis and belief system, something that psychiatrists are VERY clear as to the IMMENSE difference, otherwise their diagnosis or treatment of psychosis can be a subject of medical malpractice running into damages of thousands or millions of dollars for wrong diagnosis.

    But at the board/threads' level, it shows poorly of the state of scientific understanding in this instance. Yours truly, G.

  85. anon C has a coincidental [second time] timing of popping up at the juncture where the spot light is on the discipline of history. :- ))) G

    Beaj, would you be writing as an anti-thesis of Beaj to stir up debate and arguments? << wink >>> :-)

    My premise remains, Beaj, that, history is a discipline and those who have undertaken the discipline and have even learnt five languages to deepen their discipline, their position that there is a historical Jesus Christ stands for many and for me.

  86. Beaj, by the way, what do you think of the persistent die hard view on the board/threads that [b]equate[/b] psychosis with religious beliefs? Refer first post at page 3 of thread [b]"scientists, please read". [/b]

  87. Beaj, by the way, what do you think of the persistent die hard ERRONEOUS view on the board/threads that equate psychosis with religious beliefs? Refer first post at page 3 of the thread scientists, please read.

    By G.

  88. One poster there always equates believers with being psychotic. That is not what most posters say on Raving Atheists.
    Both Anons, you can put in a name and not an email address to post here I think. I hate to think that you believers are so unoriginal you can't come up with a stage name.
    Where do I show concern for Judaism, outside the fact that most of my family is Jewish, some of my friends are Jewish, and I would be gased because I'd be considered an ethnic Jew if another Hitler came along.
    Christianity is a complete fake religion. And it's followers are very gullible, especially the first followers. People will buy anything. Jesus never existed. Christians have been had.

  89. Beaj, I did think at first it was one poster, but did initially wonder other posters especially scientists do not tell off this errant poster that his/her view is just OFF scientific understanding. Its as if silence is implied encouragement of that EERONEOUS view.

    What alerted me was the science pls help, I am no scientist thread, where a scientist poster who was going to call for questions and answer actually placed a category Neurology [ with name of the poster with the ERRONEOUS VIEW, wrongly equating psychosis with religious beliefs]. Then I realised that others even some scientists or at least one on record and in writing agrees with the erroneous view !!! Further there appears a second lay poster who also echoes this wrong view.

    In addition, in the other science thread, scientists please read, another poster conversant with psychology but not psychiatry, glossed over an initial mistake in introducing the term bipolar disorder, and another psychologist expert also could not see the distinction between biploar disorder with or without psychosis.

    It surprises me that such an OBVIOUS MISTAKE is allowed to go off scot free. And on science threads as well.

    As to use of anon, you have the 'anon' button and it is so easy to just click on it. Maybe you should devise something else?

  90. Beaj, as to the historical Jesus Christ, my take is he is a great man. I agree with historians that there is a historical Jesus Christ. G

  91. Beaj, the rule on the board not to attack the poster but the content is not adhered to, and it was even pointed out there is a rule that the board does not guarantee the accuracy of the [scientific] views there , so why do you even refer the questions of the understanding of the BBT and origin of the universe to the science thread?

    Incidentally, I bade them good luck as there is some/much resistance [ depends on how one views the thread, scientists please read] to the idea that it is erroneous to equate religious believers per se to psychotics. It only shows poorly of the level of scientific appreciation.

    Based on the above, it is very clear to me now, abundantly clear to me now, that, the board and the thread, scientists pls help, i am no scientist, is wholly inappropriate for any worthy discussion of BBT and origin of the universe.

    I trust you see why it is inappropriate.

    Yours truly,


  92. Beaj,

    I have signed off the thread which you created to seek science help on understanding BBT and origin of the universe, by linking the talk that a Roman Catholic [Jesuit] priest cosmologist, Father George V Coyne S.J., Director of Vatican Observatory, gave on Jan 30th 2006 for the following reasons -

    1] the very poor show at the science thread, "scientists please read" on the difficulty to distinguish between psychotics and average religious believers. The resistance against moving away from equating religious believers to psychotics, speaks poorly of the level of scientific comprehension ; AND

    2] the absence of reply on the questions clearly laid out at your created thread, 'scientists pls help, i am no scientist' The absence of any easy to read primer that a scientist worth his salt cam come up with within a few hours if not a few days or over the week end .

    Do your own reading on BBT and origin of the universe, as I advised at the very outset.

    Yours truly

  93. Hi Friend! You have a great blog over here!
    Please accept my compliments and wishes for your happiness and success!
    If you have a moment, please take a look at my site:
    domain names
    It covers domain names related subjects.
    Have a great day!

  94. Well I've seen pen and teller's show on several other topics. They claim awesome research but the often times I've seen it they've cited things as fact which aren't. For example they mentioned that Josephus mentions Jesus. Almost all scholars of Josephus and other first century Roman historians say that the passages about Jesus were added later. In other words Jesus wasn't mentioned by josephus. They refute Josephuses mentioning Jesus by saying many "messiahs" were around when the bottom line is that Josephus never mentioned Jesus. The fact that Messiahs were around makes little difference. They also have a tendency to present their arguments fairly one-sided and they draw conclusions for you. In any event to be honest they've always been a bit hard to take seriously. In fact i think its kind of funny that 2 men in show business attempt to be scientists,theologians,and philosophers as if thats their profession. Eh whatever its a funny show which gets ratings by discussing sensitive topics, I wouldn't put much stock in anything they broadcast, but I would laugh where I thought something was funny.

  95. A Response To Penn and Teller’s “Bible”

    1 – There are different Genesis accounts (Genesis 1 and 2) that conflict.
    Genesis 1:27 says that on the 6th day “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Genesis 2 says God created Adam, Adam could eat fruit, he named the animals, God saw he was lonely and created Eve.
    Penn & Tell and “Mr. Skeptic” basically say, “See! Genesis 1 says He created man and woman at the same time and Genesis 2 says they were created at different times! You can’t believe the Bible, it contradicts!”
    Wow. First off, Genesis 1 is an overview or summary of the seven days of creation. Genesis 2:4 picks up with the story/details, “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” This is obviously no contradiction.
    Example: My freshman year of high school was rough; I didn’t make friends very easily. But my sophomore year got much better as I got to know more people and I became close friends with George and John. We did everything together. My junior year was cool because I tried out for the basketball team and eventually became the starting point guard! I also started dating Cindy. By my senior year I was offered a scholarship to Georgetown, was co-captain of the basketball team with John and in a long-term relationship with Cindy. High school was great.
    Now, this is an account of my high school years. As a freshman, I was picked on by the older boys because I was short and slightly overweight. A few other boys, George and Jeff were picked on too and we became known as the Twinkie Trinity. Anywhere I went, people would call out names and make fat jokes at us. Etc….
    Now, is it a contradiction that I summarized my four HS years and then started to give details about each one? Is it a contradiction that I said I became good friends with George my sophomore year but I mentioned that I knew him earlier (in a more detailed account) in my freshman year? No! Same goes for Genesis. It begins with a summary, and moves to specifics.

    2 – People say Elvis is alive too.
    Penn & Teller make it a point to show how there are people who believe Elvis is still alive, there are books and writings about him still being alive and there are even contradicting accounts of his life (Elvis never did no drugs!). . . all this just 25 years after his death! See, Elvis and Jesus sightings are just the same. We know Elvis is dead (except for a few loonies) and we also know Jesus is dead (except for a lot of loonies).
    First, Elvis never made claims to be God or that after he died he would rise from the dead.
    Second, Elvis doesn’t impact peoples’ lives the way Jesus does.
    Third, the disciples were transformed from scared men into bold men because they saw the risen Jesus. What else would have changed them from running away at his arrest and not wanting to be associated with him to loudly proclaiming that he is the Messiah and that he rose from the dead? One thing: seeing the resurrected Jesus! They were all even willing to die for what they saw. Couldn’t they have conspired and made up that story? Well, men won’t die for a known lie. If I tell you I am a three-toed Martian and you torture me, I will quickly tell you I was lying. (Some may object that radical Muslims will die for their faith but they are missing the point: they are dying for something they believe to be true, not that they know is false!)
    Fourth, Elvis’ body could be dug up. Try digging up Jesus’.
    Fifth, just because some people claim one thing to be true that isn’t, doesn’t mean that others who claim basically the same thing aren’t telling the truth! Example: Bill Clinton says he didn’t have sexual relations with Monica. Just because Bill’s story was a lie doesn’t make all non-adultery claims by other men lies as well! Just because some say Elvis is alive and they are wrong, doesn’t mean people who believe Jesus rose are wrong too (true it doesn’t prove he did rise, but you can’t use the Elvis claim to prove Jesus didn’t rise from the dead). Bill had sexual relations with Monica, therefore the Pope had sexual relations with Madonna. Or, Reagan never smoked pot, therefore neither did Snoop Dogg. Riiiiight.
    Finally, Penn & Teller constantly mention “Elvis never did no drugs,” referring to some people who say he didn’t even though others say he did. They use that phrase to imply a contradiction. So, what contradictions in the 4 gospels are they referring to? Do they name any? Nope. (For a resource of the apparent contradictions, see When Critics Ask by Geisler)

    3 – Noah’s Ark couldn’t fit two of all those species on it.
    “There’s not a boat in the world big enough to hold the millions of species that are on this planet” say most skeptics. And, of course, they’re right. But Penn & Teller seem to forget a few minor details:
    1 – They didn’t need to take any amphibians since they can survive in water. Take takes care of quite a few animals.
    2 – Insects. Well, first of all they don’t take up much room now do they? Second, many wouldn’t have to have been taken since they could survive on floating debris. Also, since insects make up a majority of the millions of species on the earth, that really drops the number of animals Noah had to take.
    3 – All of the sea creatures (which make up a large portion of the species in the world) didn’t need a ride either.
    4 – Noah didn’t need to take every breed and variation of animal. Just one according to its kind. It would only take a couple of breeds of dogs or horses to get the many various kinds we have today. Variations occur today and when you mix two breeds together, you tend to find yourself with a new breed of animal. However, you still end up with the same type of animal (breed dogs and what you get is still a dog, not a tiger!).
    5 – Remember, the ark was quite large and it had different levels too. 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high is a pretty big boat! That’s a volume of over 1.5 million cubic feet. A boat like that could hold a very large number of animals. Also, remember that he didn’t have to take adult animals, he could have taken very young ones. So, elephants, giraffes, hippos, (even though there are very few large animals like these) etc… wouldn’t have taken up quite as much room.

    4 – There is no historical account of Moses or Hebrews in Egypt. If they did exist, they probably crossed at a shallow part of the Reed Sea.
    Hebrews in Egypt? How do we know? Well, Penn & Teller say there is no evidence to show there were any Hebrews in Egypt. Funny, is there any evidence showing that either Penn or Teller ate any food in the month of May in 1983? If not, should we assume they did not eat any food in that month? Now in the same respect the argument can be said “is there any proof that Penn or Teller didn’t live in northern China in 1983?” But, lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of history. Archeology continues to unearth findings that are discovering more and more evidence of the Bible’s claims, and the more time goes by, the more the Bible is confirmed. Hey, speaking of, most people who object to the history of the Bible tend to full-heartedly support evolution. What about all those transitional forms? “Well,” they say, “just because we haven’t found them yet, doesn’t mean they’re not there!” Hmmm, sounds familiar. So, critics of the Bible, shouldn’t you at least allow others to use the same argument you are using?! A bit hypocritical wouldn’t you say?
    As far as evidence goes, there has been much claim and support for the Hyksos being the Hebrews. See http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm as well as http://www.hope.edu/bandstra/RTOT/CH3/DATING.HTM for the idea that the Habiru were the Hebrews. Also for other findings on evidence for the Hebrews, see the book, Israel in Egypt by Hoffmeier. The Brooklyn Papyrus (ancient Egyptian record) shows the ownership of slaves from a Semitic group in the north west “Asiatic” region with names that are not from the Egypt area.
    Keep in mind, many ancient civilizations (especially the Egyptians) didn’t like to record their defeats in battle, let alone allowing a slave force to leave, have an army chase them down and end up dead.
    Oh, and about the crossing at a shallow part of the Reed Sea, if the Hebrews crossed at a shallow part of the Reed Sea then how in the world did all those trained Egyptian soldiers die in a few inches of water?! That would be a miracle!

    5 – God killed all the firstborn in Egypt. How loving and kind is that?
    Amazing. When humans play God and kill thousands of innocent babies each year by having abortions we call that our “right.” But when God is God, well, we have no toleration for that. Or when America goes to war, don’t we know that when we bomb the other nation we will inevitably kill some innocent people? Yet we still go to war full well knowing that we will kill innocent people.
    Speaking of innocent, we have to have a different perspective on that issue. Is anyone perfect? Has anyone kept the laws of God 100%? Has anyone even followed his or her conscious 100%? Nope. So the concept of innocent is based on comparison. And the way we compare ourselves to others is usually something like: “well I’m not perfect, but I’m no Hitler either!” Isn’t it easier to compare our little lies and what not to the Hitlers, Husseins, cannibals, murderers, rapists and pedophiles of the world? But compared to them we are all angels! Really, we pick the worst people in the world, measure our lives against theirs and then say we are good and innocent! Why not compare ourselves to Mother Teresa, Ghandi, or Jesus?! Because we would feel bad about our lives, that’s why! Innocence is not a comparison game, it’s a rule-oriented one. Have you followed all the rules? If not, you’re not innocent. I don’t care how big or little the rule is that you’ve broken, you’re still in the wrong.
    So, let’s then take a look at innocence in God’s eyes. And, to keep it simple, let’s just look at the 10 Commandments. Ever murdered someone? No! Well hang on, Jesus said to hate is the same as murder. Dang it. Ever cheated on your spouse? No! Well hang on again, Jesus said lusting after another woman is committing adultery in your heart. Double dang! Ever taken the Lord’s name in vain? Oops. Ever been dissatisfied with the things you own and desperately wanted what someone else had? There’s your coveting. Ever put someone or something ahead of God on your priority list? There’s having another god before Him. Ever disrespected your mom or dad? Man, this is hard! Ever lied? Ok, ok, I get the point. You see, we’re not as innocent as we would like to make ourselves out to be. But big deal, I’ve broken a few little things here and there. I’m sorry, what was that? A few little things? How many times have you lied, lusted, hated, disrespected, coveted, cursed, etc? A few?! Come on, be honest, we already know you’re a liar. And what’s this about little things? Who gets to decide the scale of big and little? You? Riiiight. Elvis never did no drugs! Come on, God didn’t say “Here’s my laws. Oh, and this set of them I don’t really care if you break or not. I made them up for the heck of it. Just avoid this list of the real bad ones.” No, we don’t get to decide these things because we are not God. We have to understand we have not broken laws made up by someone inferior to us or even on the same level as us, no, we have broken God’s law. There is a big difference.
    And how do we make up for breaking a law? On earth, if we break a law made by humans we may have to pay a fine, do some community service, lose our job, or go to jail. What is the price for breaking a law made by God? Just as humans got to make the rules and make the punishments for those rules, God made the rules and he gets to decide the punishment. And He says the punishment is death. So, we can argue all day that we only do a “few” “small” sins, but even one of those is punishable by death. So is it unfair? Nope, that’s the law. What’s unfair is that most of us get to keep living after we break His law dozens, hundreds and thousands of times.
    We also tend to think that if someone dies in the Bible, then it is bad. Death is not necessarily bad. If a God exists and a Heaven exists, then those who have faith in him need not fear death. Also, just because God punishes someone in the Bible doesn’t mean they go to Hell. King David had his firstborn die because he committed adultery with Bathsheba, and yet in the end David was considered a man after God’s own heart. God punished David, Samson, Adam, Eve, Moses, Abraham, and many others but it doesn’t mean they all went to Hell.
    So, as for this notion of God being a mean God for killing all the firstborns in Egypt, keep these things in mind: death is not necessarily bad and we are not innocent. We don’t stop buying things from China because of their child limit policy, stop buying certain shoes or clothes because they were made by children, stop shopping at stores because of their views on certain ethical issues, etc. but for some reason we will picket a God who punishes law breakers. (And for those of you who argue that some of the firstborn were infants and they shouldn’t be punished since they can’t understand words let alone laws, the traditional belief is that little children go to heaven anyway so you could say God, in a sense, spared them of a hard earthly life and allowed them into Heaven. Not a very cruel thing at all.)

    6 – Jesus did slight of hand tricks, not miracles. Anyone could do that today.
    One of my favorites. Penn & Teller already come with the preconceived idea that miracles aren’t even possible so by default, Jesus must have deceived the people with tricks. Hmm, interesting, the guy who says don’t lie, love your neighbor, pray for and help your enemy, etc… actually lies and deceives those around him. Riiiiight.
    “Mr. Skeptic” himself says that the miracles that Jesus did could be done by Penn & Teller. After he says that, they move on to the next topic. What?! No walking on water by Penn, no bringing a dead man back to life by Teller and neither of them give sight to a blind guy?!?! Oh, I suppose they’re just choosing not to do a miracle. If you’re going say it was slight of hand, go ahead and raise a 3-day old dead person from the grave or go ahead and give Stevie Wonder his sight. Anyone could do it? Elvis never did no drugs!

    7 – Apollonius is a guy who lived when Jesus did and was said to have done miracles and rise from the dead too.
    So Penn & Teller mention that there were many “Messiahs” around the time of Jesus. How do we know he really was it? A guy named Apollonius seemed to have done the same type of things Jesus did so why don’t we follow him?
    Good questions. Here are some answers: first of all the only remotely early writing we have that mentions this guy is by Philostratus who wrote approx. 200-245AD. That is a good 150-200 years after Apollonuis lived! And why did he write about him since he didn’t even live in the same time you ask? Good question! An empress wanted to dedicate a temple to Apollonius and told Philo guy to go ahead and do it. Hmmm, motive? Maybe to please the empress? Maybe we embellish a little in order to please the empress? So one source 150-200 years after the fact. No eyewitnesses. How does Jesus compare? Well, to make a long story short: numerous eyewitnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude . . .) all written within 50 years of his death. Most of them within 30 years of his death! Many sources vs. one. 25-50 years after death vs. 150-200 years after death. Hmmm, which may be more accurate?
    And by the way, why are people, who reject the evidence of Jesus being a miracle worker or even alive, accepting the story of Apollonius? If you’re going to accept a one person, non-eyewitness writing 150-200 years after the fact in order that a empress can build a temple; then how much more should you accept multiple authors writing within 25-50 years of Jesus? Anyone else see ridiculous bias?

    8 – The only proof of the resurrection is the empty tomb, big whoop.
    Would a non-empty tomb be better evidence? If someone rose from the dead, wouldn’t that be the first important sign? Wouldn’t that be a requirement?
    No, the empty tomb isn’t the only proof (although it is perhaps the most important). The disciples ran away when Jesus was arrested. Why? Because they were scared for their lives! They weren’t around at the crucifixion. Why? Because they were scared for their lives! A few days after the crucifixion they were boldly proclaiming the message that Jesus was alive. Why? Because they were scared for . . . . wait. No, they no longer feared for their lives. In fact, all but one of the disciples died for their faith. What on earth would change a dozen men from frightened and scared individuals to a dozen bold and courageous individuals willing to die for their faith? Only being convinced that Jesus had in fact risen from the dead would transform such men!
    Now I assume Penn & Teller would respond, “they just made up the resurrection story.” Well, what did they have to gain? Nothing! The culture of the day was faithful Judaism and by proclaiming that Jesus (who was accused of blasphemy) was the Messiah and even God himself, well, you might as well write out your own obituary. In fact, the disciples had everything to lose, not gain! If they made it up, there still runs the problems of consistency and death.
    First, consistency. If this group of uneducated men made up this whole thing, then when they wrote about it, they would make sure all their stories sounded the same. Well, though the Gospels tell the same basic story, they all have different details. Just as if you were to ask four different people to talk about September 11th, 2001, the Gospel writers tell the same story with different details. (Many people, when asked about 9-11, forget to mention that a plane crashed in PA or one crashed in the Pentagon. Does that mean it didn’t happen? No! Some focus on the buildings crashing and burning, some focus on how many died, some focus on the rescue attempts while some focus on who did the attacks. They are different, but they don’t contradict. The same is true with the Gospels. They tell the same story, with different focus and emphasis. See question #2 for thoughts on apparent contradictions.)
    Second is death. People don’t die for what they know is a lie. If the disciples made it up, they wouldn’t die for it. For example, I might tell you I am a spy from Mars and that I believe 2+2=7, but the minute you torture me or threaten my life, I’m going to tell you I was joking or lying. The same is true for the disciples. All but one died a martyr’s death for their faith in the resurrection. If they had made it up, at least one of them would have cracked! But none of them did. Now, some may object and say that some radical Muslims blow themselves up and that disproves that people won’t die for lies. Well, no, it doesn’t. Those radicals actually believe that they are right, they aren’t blowing themselves up for something they know is wrong. People won’t die for a known lie! And the disciples didn’t die for something they knew was false.
    For a resource on refuting other claims on the resurrection, see Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell or I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Geisler and Turek.

    9 – The Bible was voted on and other books were voted out.
    Sure, and the Da Vinci Code is accurate history. Elvis never did no drugs! So how was the New Testament compiled? What were the requirements to make it into the New Testament? Well, let’s take a look:
    1 – had to have been written by an eyewitness to Jesus or a contemporary of an eyewitness and therefore also had to be written in the 1st century (no Gnostic 2nd and 3rd century “gospels”)
    2 – had to be historically accurate (no Da Vinci Code)
    3 – had to be well circulated or quoted or used by the early church (eliminates some obscure person/church using or quoting one odd letter)
    4 – the “spiritual” content had to reflect God’s character (no God loves evil stuff)
    So, as we see, the church didn’t create the cannon, it discovered what was already there. It discovered what letters and gospels were true and accurate. Kind of like the question, who invented the fact that the interior angels of a triangle total to 180 degrees? Well, nobody invented it, they just discovered what was already there. If the Lord sent the Holy Spirit to remind the disciples of all that he said and did (John 14:26), then those who were closest to him would be the ones to accurately write what he said and did.
    And by the way, didn’t we have to vote on rights for women, minorities and such? Just because something is examined and put to a vote doesn’t mean the thing being voted on is wrong or misguided.

    10 – What about these verses:
    Exodus 21:7 – slavery is ok?!!? No, reading the context of the verse you will see that the female servant is meant to be married. There is a very lengthy discussion of such verses here: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html The slavery in the OT was very different from what we think of as slavery. Poor people would sell themselves as servants to another wealthier person so they could live and be provided for (more like a job than the cruel slavery we think of). You also need to keep in mind that nowhere in the Bible does God command slavery, He is working within the context of a particular culture of the day.
    1 Corinthians 11:14 – its bad for men to have long hair!?! Wait, didn’t Jesus have long hair?! First off, all those wonderful paintings of Jesus, how do we know what he looked like? Did they take pics of him back in the day? No! All of them are just guesses! As a matter of fact, he was just an average Joe, or Jew. Isaiah 53:2 says, “He had not beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.”
    Now, Elijah had long hair (2 Kings 1), the Nazarites had long hair, Samson had long hair, Absalom was praised for his long hair . . . . So what is Paul talking about? Some say that the long hair being referred to is hair past the shoulders since women would have their hair that length and in the culture, hair to your shoulders for men was normal. Remember, long hair is a somewhat relative-to-the-culture term. Long hair in the army is what, 2 inches?! Long hair for boys in the 60s and 70s is a different type than what long hair is today. So, some would say that Paul is just saying don’t have hair like women’s hair.

    For answers to questions like these, see “When Critics Ask” by Geisler and Howe, “New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” by Archer, “Hard Sayings of the Bible” by Davids, and “Difficulties in the Bible” by Torrey. For websites, see: www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm and www.apologeticsindex.org.


  97. Hindus? I don't think I've ever posted about Hindus. I tend to past facts based on reality or satire based on reality. I don't believe I'm into hate. As far as Jews go, I do not think the Exodus happened and I know that the Ark was a joke.

  98. Penn and Teller are the real Bullshitters. The edited the footage to make it appear that Paul Maier was presenting his own thoughts when he was actually telling us what the liberal point of view is.


  99. Jesus? - Did He Really Die on the Cross? (Evidence says, NO!.)
    Bible - Is It the Word of God? (Experts say, NO!.)
    Trinity- Did Jesus or anyone teach this? (Bible says, NO!.)
    "Only Begotten Son of God"? Was this Jesus? (Bible, says - NO!).
    Are children born in original sin? (Bible says, "Yes!" - but Jesus says, "NO!")

    All this & more - internets site to compare ─░slam & Christianity:

  100. I call to arms in a War on Religion. Fought in your mind against stupidity, brainwashing, and inability to see things as they are.

  101. Some are lost and some are found...